This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the lessee of Enoch Tucker and Richard Thompson (plaintiffs in error) and Eliza G. Moreland (defendant). The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully evicted from their leased property by the defendant, who claimed to have purchased it at an auction. The court found that although there was evidence of a sale, it did not constitute legal title as required under Virginia law for such transactions. Furthermore, since the plaintiffs were not given notice prior to eviction, they could not be held liable for any damages caused by their occupancy on the land. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's right to remain on their leased property until proper legal proceedings were taken against them or until they voluntarily vacated it themselves.

In the case of Lessee of Enoch Tucker and Richard Thompson v. Eliza G. Moreland, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an executor or administrator is valid if it does not include language that specifically states they are acting in their capacity as such. The majority opinion held that such deeds were invalid because they did not contain this specific language, but Justice McLean dissented on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt that the grantors were indeed acting in their capacity as administrators or executors when executing these deeds. He argued further that even if there had been some ambiguity about who exactly executed them, courts should be more inclined towards upholding rather than voiding contracts whenever possible so long as all parties involved acted with good faith and without fraud or collusion.